JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing acquittal of respondent-Raju Bhaskar Potphode (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 355 of 1993. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused was that he had on 7.2.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. committed the murder of one Sunil Gore (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by stabbing with a knife.

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14th October, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CRLP No.3526 of 2015, thereby, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(`the Act').

ORDER

Report Nos. 72 and 76

On 13.11.2017, we had reserved orders on various applications filed for recall of the order dated 24.10.2017 regarding the ban on use of furnace oil and pet coke in the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan.

2. Today, the learned ASG has placed before us a decision taken by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Government of India on 15.11.2017 requiring the Central Pollution Control Board to issue a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan prohibiting any industry, operation or processes using pet coke and furnace oil as fuel with immediate effect until further orders. It is clarified by the learned ASG that this is with respect to entire State and not only NCR region.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J. - In Measure for Measure the Duke complains (in the given situation): "And liberty plucks justice by the nose".[8]The truth is that personal liberty cannot be compromised at the altar of what the State might perceive as justice - justice for one might be perceived as injustice for another. We are therefore unable to agree with learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled to his liberty through what is commonly referred to as `default bail' or that the justice of the case should persuade us to decide otherwise.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in RVW No.85 of 2016 in C.O. No.4228 of 2012, reviewing an order dated 02.02.2015 passed earlier in an application filed under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby enhancing the amount of maintenance from L 16,000/- per month to L 23,000/- per month.